Are we Living in Luxury and Self-Indulgence?

The subject of materialism is often on my heart having lived in the Philippines for a period, and having seen poverty in other countries whilst serving on-board Logos Hope. Returning to Western culture, a touch of distaste and unfortunately judgementalism, whilst not necessarily helpful, is inevitable. But, in recent months, as I have been encouraged to spend more and worry less, I have been asking the questions, are all Westerners living in luxury and is that self-indulgent? What will God say to us on Judgement Day? 

The immediate reply of most people confronted with this question is that in comparison with their non-Christian neighbours and friends, they are pretty frugal. We cannot be expected to compare a Western standard of living with the third world, right? 

Additionally, they comment, it’s more about our attitude to wealth because it’s the love of money that is a root of evil, not money itself. And that God gives us things to enjoy and as a blessing.

Personally, I find that stuff overwhelms and exhausts me, the less things I have the better. I would happily leave my few things for a simple, traditional, missionary lifestyle when God leads, but maybe that’s just me.

I picked up the book Radical by David Platt this week and read it in a few days. It is the third book I have read by this author. Platt pastors a mega-church in America and has sparked controversy with some of his radical (biblical?) ideas. He is definitely sincere in his views and the implementation of them, but is he sincerely wrong?

Platt found himself a mega-pastor in his late twenties. He was living the American (or British) dream—successful, wealthy, fulfilling life-long ambitions. But he was suddenly stopped in his tracks when faced with the startling reality that the American dream may not be God’s way. His soul searching led to the realisation that if he wanted to truly follow Jesus, as a pastor, he would have to take his church with him—turn his culture on its head and deal with the consequence. He faced up to the blind spot in his life and ministry.

Platt believes Western Christians are living in luxury. He proposes that God doesn’t make us rich—“if your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84% of the world. So you can call yourself blessed and get a bigger house, better car and more stuff.” He proposes, based on Scripture, that God gives us more than we need, so we can use it to bless others. He reminds us that God is not likely to one day admonish us, “I wish you would’ve kept more for yourself”

If nothing else, material wealth and the stuff that we accumulate distracts us from pursuing God wholeheartedly. There are a lot of ways to waste time with these things which can cause us to lose focus on our mission—to see lost souls come to Jesus. Platt reminds us of the billions of “unreached” still out there and points out that a huge percentage of missionaries are serving in “reached” areas. He quotes older missionaries like John Paton, C.T. Studd and Jim Elliot who literally gave up everything when they went to the field. “He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” (Elliot)

There is a great need for Christian church leaders that are willing to confront cultural trends with biblical truth. Platt’s “Radical Experiment” challenges readers to initially dedicate one year to God—pray for the world, study the Bible (cover to cover,) sacrifice money for a specific purpose, spend time in another context (missions) and commit their life to a multiplying community (local church family.) But the issue that has caused the controversy is that Platt suggests that all Christians should be doing these things anyway because they are biblical. Is he right?

Platt’s critics cry legalism and salvation by works. The out-workings of some of his suggestions seem to have led in some cases to spiritual burnout and a mass exodus from his church. But couldn’t that just be the enemy causing confusion and chaos in an otherwise God ordained situation? In a mega-church congregation there are bound to be some that do things with the wrong motivation or who miss the heart of the call to action. Is that the fault of the pastor? 

Platt makes it clear in this book that salvation is by faith alone and that works should be a natural outflow. He highlights the centrality of the Gospel message when involved in social action or when deciding which projects to support.

His church community seem to have literally taken responsibility for all of the “people- needs” in the area and further afield. Surely that is what a local church should be doing—teaching believers within and proclaiming Christ on the streets, combining help with hope in the community. 

God does place different calls on the lives of individuals and gifts them specifically. But surely that is the point of the church family—to accomplish his work together as a body. Is that really so radical?

I was personally encouraged and challenged by this book and the life and testimony of the author.

10 Reasons to Write Honest Book Reviews

If you peruse a selection of the reviews on Amazon or Goodreads you will find that they are largely positive—as in 4 or 5 star ratings. Considering that it is now, due to print on demand, possible for anyone to self-publish with no upfront costs, can it really be that the majority of books are “really liked” or “loved” by most readers? Or is it that society is gradually conditioning us to avoid confrontation or negativity in favour of a more positive and uplifting approach?

As an evangelical Christian I am obviously in favour of encouragement and of trying to see the good side of things. But shouldn’t we also be honest and say what we really think about something? What value is it if we say that things are good when they are not? What will happen to the quality of our literature if we follow each other in enthusing about books that we actually found dull and monotonous in order to fit in? Is that what is happening or is it that we’ve lost the ability to think critically, having been instructed from an early age that we need to build a person’s self-esteem through affirmation?

Hopefully, you can now appreciate why this is an important issue worth writing about. This is my list of reasons for writing honest book reviews.

1.     Maintaining a good standard of quality literature. This is particularly important with the massive rise in self-publishing in recent years. If readers were honest, those poor quality books that are badly edited or just not worth reading would be banished forever.

2.      Time is valuable. How many times have you downloaded a book or picked one up cheaply in a charity/thrift store only to read the first few chapters and abandon it? How many books do you have waiting in your “to read” pile? How many other ways are you wasting time due to not really knowing whether or not a book is worth reading due to the lack of honest reviews?

3.     Money is scarce. E-books and the ability to “Look Inside” a book partly negate this issue as you can “try before you buy.” But there are still some over-priced e-books out there. And what of those who prefer paperbacks or who aren’t internet savvy? Honest reviews prevent people wasting their hard-earned cash on something that will inevitably disappoint.

4.    Offensive content. Standards are lowering across the globe as people depart from biblical values. What was offensive twenty years ago is now considered acceptable. I appreciate that readers will have different opinions on what is and isn’t offensive. Wouldn’t it be useful to know in advance if there is bad language, blasphemy, sex, violence or drug-taking in a book? There are various Christian websites that evaluate movies but none that I am aware of for books. Readers rely on reviews yet I rarely see comments about this type of content issue.

5.      Authors want them! Most serious authors want to know how they can improve their writing. They want to know about content or editing issues. Changes are easier to make now than ever. The pain of receiving a 1 or 2 star rating is somewhat negated with an explanation as to why the reader didn’t enjoy the book. Sometimes it will be unavoidable or a mismatched genre preference—I have had non-Christians offended by the Christian focus of my books. But most authors want to know anyway. One author contacted me after I left a relatively negative review on Amazon to ask me to be a BETA reader for her. She told me that I had raised all of the issues that she had felt uncomfortable with when she had published the book.

6.     Encourage critical thinking. An honest and thought-provoking review may cause others to re-examine their own position on an issue. My most popular review to date was of the best-selling Christian book The Shack. Wincing at the numerous 4 and 5 star reviews, I gave it 1 star due to the bad language and erroneous theology. My review generated a great deal of discussion on Goodreads which led to someone recommending a Youtube documentary examining the book in light of Scripture. Surely it is good for all of us to be challenged in this way.

7.       Fostering reliability. Readers still look at reviews when deciding what to read, but how many are being put off by the grossly inflated statistics? If a book is rated 5 stars it should be something exceptional, but many are not. This has come about partly due to review swaps between authors who then cannot bring themselves to be honest for fear of damaging their own chances of success. This also occurs due to authors paying for reviews—yes, this does happen despite big companies like Amazon clamping down. But I would suggest that readers could easily over-ride these misleading and in some cases fraudulent stats by simply being honest in their own reviews.

8.     Increased success for indies. Good self-published authors can be lost in the tide of drivel. Readers become reluctant to buy indie books after a few disastrous purchases. If only they could rely on the reader reviews they might take a chance on a new author.

9.     Bucking the trend. Okay, maybe this is just me, but there’s definitely something satisfying about drawing attention to a little known author after a great reading experience; or, conversely, departing from the acceptable path of popular opinion by slating a “classic.” A word of caution here—only do this if it is what you really think. Ulterior motives tend to expose themselves in the end.

10.    It’s biblical! I had to of course mention the most important point. We should be “speaking the truth in love.” At times, that might involve contacting an author and offering feedback privately rather than a public review. It might also involve explaining publicly why a book is offensive or theologically inaccurate to steer others away from it. It doesn’t generally involve remaining silent and it definitely doesn’t involve giving an untruthful opinion about something to please an author, blend in with the crowd, or to avoid being controversial.

Let’s be honest in our reviews so that we can all enjoy our reading experiences.

Ephesians 4 vs 15

 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ

Proverbs 16 vs 13

 Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right.

 

Ephesians 4 vs 25

Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another.

The Offence of Christian Evangelism

In Western society, people are increasingly concerned about what is and isn’t offensive. You will hear the words tolerance, openness, inclusivity and diversity in almost every speech. Aspiring political leaders vie to offer a greater demonstration of these values.  But what do these words really mean? Is it even possible to apply them in a society that we expect to actually function? 

A previous post asked the question “What is truth?” Some would say that people with a definite answer to that question are offending others who hold a different view. If I answer that truth is found in the Bible, I am offending those who believe that it is found elsewhere, or those who believe that truth is relative. But for the moment, due to freedom of speech, “offending” someone is still okay.

What about those who, after Brexit, decided to express their suppressed prejudices through racism, xenophobia or other criminal acts? They believed that the vote legitimised their illegal expression. I think we can all agree that these activities are unacceptable and that such people should be punished in accordance with the law. But what about the views that led to the actions--should people be allowed to hold those views in the first place? How can they be prevented from forming and holding convictions that the vast majority find offensive?

The whole debate is really nonsense as it is totally subjective. Who decides what is and isn’t offensive? If free speech is enshrined in law, then we have to accept that sometimes we will not agree with each other and may therefore be offended by someone else’s viewpoint. The alternative is a society where everyone thinks, speaks and acts in an identical manner to avoid offending another person. Individuality, creativity and intelligent thought are dead—slain on the altar of political correctness. Do we really want to end up living in the utopia’s of 1984, Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451? 

That sets the context for my narrower subject which is the “offence” of Christian evangelism. I thought it would be helpful for those who do not appreciate Christians’ efforts to “convert” them to hear a different perspective. From conversations over the years, I’ve surmised that a lot of atheists, agnostics and people of other faiths believe that Christians evangelise for one or all of the following reasons:

●     To prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong

●     To gain numbers for the church/their own personal “soul count”

●     To earn their way to heaven by gaining favour with God

●     To impress others with their good deeds

●     Because their church leader/denomination tells them to

It’s no wonder, then, that most people resist these evangelistic efforts and may even get irritated when they see the evangelist coming. The common denominator in this list is “self-focus.” Unfortunately, many of us have fallen into the trap of making evangelism about ourselves and our churches instead of about God.

So what should be the motivator for Christian evangelism? I once read a short story about a Christian man who was staying for three weeks with a friend that he had not seen for a very long time. At the end of the period, when he was about to leave, he was rebuked by a series of questions; 

“Tell me, you are a Christian are you not?” 

 “Yes sir, I am”

 “Does Christianity then dry up all the milk of human kindness and compassion, rendering it obsolete?”

 “Whatever do you mean?”

 “Here you have been staying under my roof for three whole weeks. We have been eating together, conversing and spending much time in each other’s company. And yet not once have you placed your hand on my shoulder and sought to tell me how I might save my own soul from an eternity in hell. That is where you believe I am heading, is it not?”

I cannot recall the source and the exact dialogue between the two men, but that was the gist of their conversation and it has stayed with me through the years. The salient point is obviously that the non-believer was expecting the believer to share his faith with him. He saw the failure as evidence of a lack of love and care for him as a friend. It should be the natural, innate desire of a Christian to share the Good News with those that cross their path.

Society tells Christians to pipe down—that espousing their views is offensive. Christians begin to conform and to ask one another whether they even need to tell others what they believe. Maybe they can have a private faith and keep it all in house. Maybe it is more loving and less offensive in a free society—live and let live!

But the Gospel is an offence and God tells us to share it with others. It is an offence to tell someone that unless they believe that Jesus died on the cross in their place and for their sin, they are going to hell forever. We don’t need to be offensive in the way that we deliver the message. But if it is the message itself that offends, then so be it, if we really believe the truth of our own message. Maybe that is the bigger issue….

Sadly, we may never have the chance to hear those fateful words “But why didn’t you tell me?” Our friends, neighbours and colleagues who either didn’t hear or didn’t believe the Gospel will already be spending an eternity in hell. In heaven, we will not have the chance to empathise with them in their predicament because there is no sadness, mourning or crying. It will be too late.

Today is the day of salvation. Time is short. Let’s remember that this world with its values and ideas about what is and isn’t offensive is passing away. There will be no platform for political correctness on judgement day. Let’s not be hampered by those who seek to silence us for the perceived public good. Let’s steer clear of church politics, soul counting and other similarly damaging practices. Let’s instead reach out to those around us with the right motivation—love for them and concern for their eternal souls.

1 Corinthians 1 vs 18

 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Acts 4 vs 12

 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Acts 4 vs 19-20

 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

2 Corinthians 6 vs 2

Behold, now is the favourable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.